In August of 1945 the United States was the most power political entity in the history of the world. We alone held the atomic bomb. We alone had strategic bombing at an industrial level. Had the United States not shown restraint it could have wiped the Soviet Union off the face of the earth. If you want an example of American exceptionalism there it is. No other major power in the history world would have restrained itself from using a new weapon.

Many Germans died on the Eastern Front, but is it really a sign of military strength to trade soldiers with the enemy at a ration of 3-1 in their favor?

There was clearly one ultimate world power during and after World War 2. And unless you hate where you live it's pretty clear it's the United States

Operation Barbarossa turned out to be a top 5 military blunder of all time.
Stalingrad is one of the greatest stands ever.

Operation Barbarossa turned out to be a top 5 military blunder of all time.
Stalingrad is one of the greatest stands ever.

There goes that Fox News gene kicking inl again. You got to leave the Ollie North War Stories Promos alone. They've deluded your brain. Oh and yeah you really aren't "partisan" are you?

They came really, really close to a knockout in 1941. If the attack started at the end of April who knows what would have happened. Some historians as if the Soviets win no matter what because that's what happened. There was a ton of disfunction in that country. Had Hitler given the other to ass as liberators rather than as in a total war the population might have turned on the Soviets.

This has literally nothing to do with Fox News, or "Ollie North". You can either discuss what was written or scream about Fox News.

Now, Japan's entry into the war and her large preoccupation with the united states allowed stalin to move almost all their forces into the eastern front against Germany... could it be argued that japan enabled the defeat of germany by allowing russia to move assets to stall the advance short of Moscow?

By winter, hitler was more worried about taking Crimea and the Ukraine for their food production. Germany was a) unprepared for winter war, b) preoccupied with the aforementioned food production problems and c) facing poor military leadership and hitler himself was calling the shots against the advice of his commanders.

Before the germans reached Volga they were dangerously over spread and under supplied. Again, supply lines were the biggest problem facing germany. This contributed to the germans getting surrounded that winter.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Now, Japan's entry into the war and her large preoccupation with the united states allowed stalin to move almost all their forces into the eastern front against Germany... could it be argued that japan enabled the defeat of germany by allowing russia to move assets to stall the advance short of Moscow?

By winter, hitler was more worried about taking Crimea and the Ukraine for their food production. Germany was a) unprepared for winter war, b) preoccupied with the aforementioned food production problems and c) facing poor military leadership and hitler himself was calling the shots against the advice of his commanders.

Before the germans reached Volga they were dangerously over spread and under supplied. Again, supply lines were the biggest problem facing germany. This contributed to the germans getting surrounded that winter.

I think that one of the greatest reason that the allies won WWII was the stupidity of Hitler and how he ran the war. Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union was asinine. The size of the Soviet Union and their retreating before Hitler's invasion stretched the German's supply lines was too far and ended up costing the German's the war in the end. Stalin really didn't give a rat's ass about how many of the population died during that invasion, their scorched earth policy in their retreat gave the German's nothing except land which the Soviets had a lot of.

The blitzkrieg method was very effective in bordering nations; didn't allow time to build up an adequate supply line to carry into winter.

Now, Japan's entry into the war and her large preoccupation with the united states allowed stalin to move almost all their forces into the eastern front against Germany... could it be argued that japan enabled the defeat of germany by allowing russia to move assets to stall the advance short of Moscow?

By winter, hitler was more worried about taking Crimea and the Ukraine for their food production. Germany was a) unprepared for winter war, b) preoccupied with the aforementioned food production problems and c) facing poor military leadership and hitler himself was calling the shots against the advice of his commanders.

Before the germans reached Volga they were dangerously over spread and under supplied. Again, supply lines were the biggest problem facing germany. This contributed to the germans getting surrounded that winter.

Now, Japan's entry into the war and her large preoccupation with the united states allowed stalin to move almost all their forces into the eastern front against Germany... could it be argued that japan enabled the defeat of germany by allowing russia to move assets to stall the advance short of Moscow?

By winter, hitler was more worried about taking Crimea and the Ukraine for their food production. Germany was a) unprepared for winter war, b) preoccupied with the aforementioned food production problems and c) facing poor military leadership and hitler himself was calling the shots against the advice of his commanders.

Before the germans reached Volga they were dangerously over spread and under supplied. Again, supply lines were the biggest problem facing germany. This contributed to the germans getting surrounded that winter.

Hitler had to deal with Soviet manpower, Russian winter and food shortages.

However Russia was also plagued by food shortages too. The most decisive factor for the Russians was the superiority that they enjoyed in terms of manpower. They were able to incur heavy casualties and continue fighting.

Fighting that war on both fronts was (as Drebin stated) a huge miscalculation on Hitler's part.

Hitler had to deal with Soviet manpower, Russian winter and food shortages.

However Russia was also plagued by food shortages too. The most decisive factor for the Russians was the superiority that they enjoyed in terms of manpower. They were able to incur heavy casualties and continue fighting.

Fighting that war on both fronts was (as Drebin stated) a huge miscalculation on Hitler's part.

Hitler had to deal with Soviet manpower, Russian winter and food shortages.

However Russia was also plagued by food shortages too. The most decisive factor for the Russians was the superiority that they enjoyed in terms of manpower. They were able to incur heavy casualties and continue fighting.

Fighting that war on both fronts was (as Drebin stated) a huge miscalculation on Hitler's part.

No argument here. You're correct.
If hitler fortified the atlantic wall, conceded italy, stopped in Poland, and not tried to bomb London, there would be a lot more german speakers today.
Beyond 1943, germany does not appear to have made a single rational military decision. Hitler was no strategist. He was way to dumb to listen to his commanders. It cost him the war.

There was a country that did fine fighting on two fronts. In fact, they were able to win on both fronts. Hmm.

No the general consensus was that he simply needed to commit his war effort to the Western theatre. That was it.

He definitely was not a strategist and by that time he all too consumed by hubris and drugs to be thinking rationally.


However there is no doubt as to his military advantages at the start of the war. His entire economy was tied to the war effort and had been since the mid 30's.

It has more to do with Fox News than it has to with "hating the country" The statement that you made is very Fox News like. You do it all the time and its propagandists speak. You should be able to make points without indulging in that sort of thing but unfortunately your ignorance as it regards to facts precludes you from doing that.

Everyone here this far (except for you) has made points that they can support. You can't and never quite can. I know why. Its because your points are always devoid of facts. That's why you will always invariably resort to Right Wing Talking points as a means of providing cover for your ignorance.

Me and Darko have respectfully disagreed. No one's patriotism has been questioned to you came along.

Here is the vaunted military strength of America at the start of WW2 for you.

Like any President, FDR’s foremost responsibility was to maintain the security of the United States against possible attack. Given the threats posed by fascist Germany and Japan, the relative size of our armed forces in comparison with other states and the reluctance of an “isolationist” Congress to authorize military expenditures in peacetime, this proved to be no easy task. Indeed, in June of 1939 the roughly 180,000-man US Army ranked 19th in the world-smaller than Portugal’s! To bolster America’s security, FDR not only called for an increase in the size of the nation’s military budget, and the repeal of the arms embargo provisions within the 1930s neutrality legislation, he also quietly sought to strengthen America’s ties with Great Britain-the one nation whose combined military, political and economic strength might serve as a bulwark against a possible Axis aggression in the Western Hemisphere.

Given the United States’ status today as the world’s lone superpower, it is hard for most Americans to imagine a time when we might look to Great Britain and the Royal Navy as America’s first line of defense; yet on the eve of the Second World War until well into the early 1940s, Great Britain’s combined military strength exceeded that of the United States. FDR was well aware of this. He also understood that it would take time for the United States to catch up with her potential allies and adversaries. Hence one of the fastest and most efficient means for him to bolster America’s security was to strengthen the ties between Great Britain and the United States.

So, what this translated from LTG's speaking in tongues parlance is that if you bring up a point that LTG disagrees with, the person saying such a thing is ignorant and then he will come up with the opposite view occurring because that person is a racist because he disagree with LTG. WFR brought up nothing that was wrong. It just didn't fit LTG's view of the world and the people in it.

So, what this translated from LTG's speaking in tongues parlance is that if you bring up a point that LTG disagrees with, the person saying such a thing is ignorant and then he will come up with the opposite view occurring because that person is a racist because he disagree with LTG. WFR brought up nothing that was wrong. It just didn't fit LTG's view of the world and the people in it.